discord_timeout_member

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark this as non-readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those hints: exactly what the timeout prevents, that duration_minutes = 0 clears an active timeout early, the 28-day maximum, and the permission requirement. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: the main effect, the zero-duration edge case, and the permission prerequisite. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough for correct invocation: it explains the timeout effect, early removal, maximum duration, and required permission. The parameter details are fully covered by the schema, and no critical behavioral gap remains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents duration bounds (0–40320), the 'Use 0 to clear' behavior, and the format of guild_id and user_id. The description repeats the 0-clear rule and max duration but does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mute a member for a set duration (Discord timeout)' and lists the concrete behavioral effects (cannot send messages, react, or speak). This clearly distinguishes it from permanent moderation siblings like kick_member and ban_member, and the title 'Timeout member' reinforces the same idea.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: temporary muting with a configurable duration, plus the special case of passing 0 to remove an active timeout. It also states the required 'Moderate Members' permission. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like ban_member or kick_member, but the timeout semantics make the intended use case clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.